Cited by 773Spam and Phishing DetectionMisinformation and Its ImpactsHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

Spotting fake reviewer groups in consumer reviews

Mukherjee, Arjun, Liu, Bing, Glance, Natalie·2012·Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web

Abstract

Opinionated social media such as product reviews are now widely used by individuals and organizations for their decision making. However, due to the reason of profit or fame, people try to game the system by opinion spamming (e.g., writing fake reviews) to promote or demote some target products. For reviews to reflect genuine user experiences and opinions, such spam reviews should be detected. Prior works on opinion spam focused on detecting fake reviews and individual fake reviewers. However, a fake reviewer group (a group of reviewers who work collaboratively to write fake reviews) is even more damaging as they can take total control of the sentiment on the target product due to its size. This paper studies spam detection in the collaborative setting, i.e., to discover fake reviewer groups. The proposed method first uses a frequent itemset mining method to find a set of candidate groups. It then uses several behavioral models derived from the collusion phenomenon among fake reviewers and relation models based on the relationships among groups, individual reviewers, and products they reviewed to detect fake reviewer groups. Additionally, we also built a labeled dataset of fake reviewer groups. Although labeling individual fake reviews and reviewers is very hard, to our surprise labeling fake reviewer groups is much easier. We also note that the proposed technique departs from the traditional supervised learning approach for spam detection because of the inherent nature of our problem which makes the classic supervised learning approach less effective. Experimental results show that the proposed method outperforms multiple strong baselines including the state-of-the-art supervised classification, regression, and learning to rank algorithms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2187836.2187863

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The study confirms that fraud is perpetrated by experts who control many sockpuppet user accounts.

    “Our study thus confirms observations made by existing work, that fraud is perpetrated by experts who control either (1) many sockpuppet user accounts, e.g., [28, 37, recruited online [13,17].”

    From The Art and Craft of Fraudulent App Promotion in Google Play (2019) · cites this paper as [37]

  • The paper found rapid review bursts in both qualitative and quantitative investigations, consistent with assumptions in prior fraud-detection work, and interview participants revealed adaptive rate control as an avoidance technique.

    “We found ASO workers who post fake reviews in rapid bursts in both our qualitative and quantitative investigations.This is consistent with assumptions made in previous fraud detection work, e.g., [26, 28, 32, 36-38, 40, 42, 43, 51, 52, 59-61, 63, 65, 92, 95, 96, 100].”

    From The Art and Craft of Fraudulent App Promotion in Google Play (2019) · cites this paper as [37]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 41 · Cited by 773

Authors
Mukherjee, A., Liu, B., & Glance, N.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
  • Google (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web
Publisher
ACM
Published
2012-04-16
Pages
191-200
OpenAlex
W2103063352
Cited by
773
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 55 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 85 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 84 · 2017: 74 · 2016: 62 · 2015: 74 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 12
FWCI
42.03
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Keywords
opinion spam, fake reviews, consumer reviews, spam detection, frequent itemset mining, collusion detection, behavioral models, relation model

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review